…again. If it sounds familiar it’s not just you. But they’ve been back on “undecided” shortly after. Let’s hope this is the actual final decision.
…again. If it sounds familiar it’s not just you. But they’ve been back on “undecided” shortly after. Let’s hope this is the actual final decision.
We have to protest this shit every fucking year and those asshole politicians just keep trying.
Classical Athens punished the people who proposed evil laws with fines or way worse. But our enlightened ”democracies” just let this happen without repercussions.
It’s like Wheel of Time. The Dragon gets reborn again and again fighting “the last battle” forever.
We have to fight to get it denied every single time. They have to push it through only once. That’s why they keep trying.
…and we keep fighting.
The Czechs got upset at EU-level efforts on gun control — Czechia has permissive firearm law — and passed an amendment to Czechia’s constitution in 2021 guaranteeing certain firearm rights in Czechia. If the EU passed a directive that conflicted with it after that point without getting Czechs to approve an amendment to their constitution, Czechia would immediately begin violating the directive, which raises the stakes for people who wanted additional restrictions EU-wide.
One imagines that the same tactic could be used in other areas; if one or more EU members prohibited restrictions on end-to-end encryption or the like, it’d create a legal bar that would first need to be undone to create a restriction EU-wide.
That being said, if this sort of hardball tactic gets done too frequently, it’d make it really difficult to legislate at the EU level, because you’d have one state or another creating legal landmines all over.
And any other individual member could still impose their own state-level restrictions on end-to-end encryption in such a scenario — it’d only create an impediment to EU-wide restrictions.
AFAIK there are some EU countries with privacy laws that won’t allow chat control
I believe that the point of the Czechia situation was that it was a modification to the constitution; this will have a higher bar to change than would be the case for simply enacting an ordinary law. The idea was to entrench the status quo behind the bar for constitutional modification.
kagis
Looks like it’s a 60% supermajority in each legislative house:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Czech_Republic#Amending_the_Constitution
So to produce such an effect, if there are laws that would prohibit bans on end-to-end encryption, say, those laws would need to be constitutional law or similar in an EU member state where such a law has a higher-than-ordinary bar to change.
The EU is an economic-political union, not a socio-political union. Attempts to impose any sort of social law across all member nations feels like abuse of purpose, and also beside the point of having distinct member states in the first place.
As the IRA said to Thatcher, you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once
For this kind of treasonous shit we really should have lifelong imprisonment back.
Nah, a ban from holding public office would do the trick easily enough.